A lot to unpack here.
First, I think she's been very clear about who was in the room as she identified both people and what Kavanaugh tried to do. She is, admittedly, fuzzy on other details. So, identity is not an issue.
Next, as someone who solely prosecuted sex crimes for three years, I can tell you the large majority of rape cases involve known assailants that are virtually "he said/she said" cases with little more evidence. That is why so many rape victims refuse to come forward, or take years to muster up the courage to do so. Because they know, deep down, without more there will always be people saying accusing them of lying. Their word is not good enough.
Her evidence is her saying in so many words that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her six years ago when she was talking to a psychiatrist at marriage counseling. Why was she at marriage counseling? Because apparently this incident has effected her emotionally to the point that it was harming her marriage. Why would she bring this up during counseling? Was she lying? Was this part of her long con to take down Kavanaugh? I doubt it.
Next, you say there's no way to prove he did it. First, as others have said, this isn't a criminal trial. So, proof isn't necessary here. Admittedly, Democrats are capitalizing on this allegation. Does that make the allegation any less true? Does that mean this man is deserving of a job only 120 people in the history of this country have held? Or, as I said earlier, perhaps there's another conservative Harvard grad who didn't drunkenly try and rape someone who should have the job. The fact of the matter is, if this girl came home that night and told her parents...they would've probably gone straight to the police (as I'm sure you would do if you have a daughter and she told you. I hope you wouldn't tell her, Sorry...there's no way to prove what you're saying is true. It's just he said/she said). If this report to the police happened, we're never having this discussion. Kavanaugh would never have been considered, and rightly so. I'm sure he still would've gone on to be a very successful lawyer. But, to be a Supreme Court Justice, attempted rape shouldn't be on your resume.
You keep saying it's an unprovable accusation because it's he said/she said. First, that's not true. Cases are proven all the time based upon the testimony of the witnesses and who a jury finds more credible. Secondly, again, this isn't a criminal proceeding. It's a job interview.
Your swiftboating accusation is absurd. Again, she already talked about this incident before she had a motive AND she passed a lie detector test (which I can tell you, unless you're trained or a sociopath, are incredibly reliable). So, there is much more meat to these accusations than you care to admit. Sure, the dems are using this for political fodder. But, make no mistake what conservatives like yourself and Republicans are doing - it is the same thing they did when they voted for Trump - they are selling their soul for the glimmer of hope of getting Roe v. Wade overturned. The truth is, even if Kavanaugh came out tomorrow and said the accusations are true...I was a drunk 17 year old kid and I'm sorry. They would still rush to put him on the highest court in the land just to get "their guy" appointed.
Personally, I think Trump should withdraw his nomination and immediately nominate whoever is no. 2 on his list. Assuming there's nothing like this in his/her past, all the people on the short list were qualified and they will be confirmed before Jan 1. It's the right thing to do, and the Pubs still get their fifth conservative on the bench.
Good post, a quick preface. I don't think she is swift boating anyone, I think the Democratic Senators are. I think in all likelihood she had an experience with some memory of it, and is trying to piece together her past. Why this information was relayed to Senator Feinstein is clearly political on her part, but it doesn't mean she is trying to make something up. It doesn't preclude her being dishonest, but I tend to assume that she is basing this on some level of experienced truth.
You assume that she was at marital counseling because of a sexual assualt 30 years prior. That is a giant leap in logic. She could have been at marital counseling for any number of reasons. Why did she bring it up? I don't know, probably because she had some sort of experience in the past that tends to be uncovered in counseling. This doesn't mean that the incident was the cause of her problems. Again - that is an assumption based on very limited evidence.
With regards to a criminal trial - that is exactly what she and the Democratic Senators are calling for. They are clamoring for a FBI investigation. I am glad that you agree that the Democrats are capitalizing on this situation, and no it doesn't make it any less untrue or true. Again, we have an accusation by a single witness that is not corroborated by any further evidence for the remainder of Kavanaugh's life. In fact quite the opposite has occurred since the allegation was made. Numerous women have stood up and denied that the Kavanaugh they have known for decades would commit this kind of act. They know him to be respectful, fair, and kind to women. Again - in the court of public opinion (which we both agree is all this about) the evidence swings heavily towards Kavanaugh's proper treatment of other people, particularly women.
Your next point is to attempt to make it a personalized situation. If my 50 year old daughter came to me and told me that when she was 15 a boy had been sexually aggressive towards her I would be the best support I could possibly be to her. If she decided to go public, I would back her 100% and scream from the rooftops. But as her dad, I am not an unbiased observer. I am not asked to make a judgement call. If my 15 year old daughter came home and told me that I would call the police myself. Because there would be a case. There would be witnesses, there would be a chain of events, there would be physical evidence of potentially DNA, ripped clothes, etc... If my 50 year old daughter asked for my advice on what to do about it (after hearing about the incident for the first time) I would tell her to seek a Christian Counselor, and I would be there with her for whatever she needed, but that I wouldn't advise going public, because I don't think it is in your best interest.
The reality is that Dr. Ford is going through hell right now, and that is completely unfortunate. Preventing Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court will not help her healing process (in my opinion) and so as her father I would advise against it. If my daughter wanted to go public 35 years after it happened I would be standing next to her supporting her action simply because that is what dad's do, not because I thought the claim had any chance of being 'proven' right.
I don't think I am selling my soul for anything. I think we simply have no idea if her accusations are true or not. The accusation was from over 3 decades ago, there are no corroborating facts, the life that Kavanaugh has led as an adult does not line up with the accusation, and the accusation is being welded by a heavily motivated political opponent who intentionally politically timed the blow to cause the most damage. A completely unprovable accusation from 35 years ago with no physical evidence or corroborating witnesses should not sink anyone, man or woman, from their career aspirations.
I appreciate the candor and tone of your post, and even more appreciate your commitment to defending the defenseless in our society, but this certainly wouldn't stand in a courtroom, and it doesn't even come close to standing in the court of public opinion. It is simply being emotionally latched onto by liberals in a blind hope to sink Kavanaugh, pay back the Republicans for Garland (which I can completely understand) and hold on to the slim chance that they can turn the Senate in November, stalemate the selection process past the new year and then prevent Trump from selecting a 9th justice. This isn't about Kavanugh. This is about Trump, and I understand that passion, because I hate him too, but the assumptions that are made to make the argument against Kavanaugh are just too broad.
